12/27/2012

It sure seems like he violated the D.C. law against possessing high capacity magazines. Right there on video in front of the whole country and everything.

‘Course, that law kinda seems unconstitutional. And, he doesn’t seem like he’s going to hurt anybody with the magazine.

So. Is that the standard?

I’d hate to be the guy prosecuting Gregory. Then again, say a robber breaks into a D.C. resident’s home, and the resident shoots the robber dead. And the investigation shows that the resident shot the robber dead with a gun with a high capacity magazine. And the resident has no criminal record. And four young kids in the house. And the robber turns out to have had his own semiautomatic gun, with his own high capacity magazine — and tried to shoot at the resident. But the resident got the drop on him first.

I’d hate to be the guy prosecuting the resident.

So.

In many cases, prosecutors might exercise prosecutorial discretion and not charge the resident in the above example. Or the David Gregories of the world.

But what if the high capacity magazine was found during, oh, I don’t know, a wrong-door raid? Or a questionable traffic stop? Or a SWATting?

And in all cases, the possessor of the magazine is an otherwise law-abiding citizen. With a magazine arguably protected by the Constitution … but outlawed by a questionable law.

The DC law doesn’t say you have to be committing a crime for the HC magazine to be illegal. It doesn’t say that the magazine has to be loaded with bullets. It simply says that just possessing a HC magazine is illegal. The fact that people are trying to justify this possession as less important during a lawful self-protection just shows how idiotic this law is. Gregory should get the same journalist process that O’keefe got.

I’m a little more peeved that Gregory so haughtily dismisses the idea of having armed security in public schools, even though his own children attend a private school that apparently has — wait for it — armed security guards. On an earlier thread I dismissed as unaffordable the idea that we could place police officers in every school, but at least I am not compounding my hypocrisy by sending my kids to a well-protected private school.

according to the law as i’ve seen it poseted, even if the mag was disassembled, and he only had the shell, or just the shell with the floor plate, he’d still be in violation.

certainly, if i were driving through DC, with a magazine that was lawfully owned where i lived and where i was going, and it was found by a DC cop during my transit, i’d be arrested, held and at least arraigned, while the process, and my lawyer, went through things. anyone who believes that your average nobody citizen would receive the same sort of deference this talking head a55hat is getting needs to stop taking drugs.

had this been a live interview with a DC citizen, taking a pro-gun stance, and the cameras had captured them waving a 30 round mag around, the SWAT team would have been at their door for the raid as soon as the search warrant was signed.

either we all have equal status under the laws, and Gregers gets run through the mill just like anyone else, or we don’t have any laws at all, except what the elite want them to be for us proles and we might just as well kick off the civil war and get it over with.

Of course, they can’t just come out and say it, but one of the reasons why the main stream media is pooh-pooh-ing l’affaire Gregory is that the idea that simple possession of an unloaded magazine being a crime is so mind-bogglingly stupid on its face that they understand the unfairness of it all at a gut level. Why should merely holding a metal box with a spring in it be punishable by a $1,000 fine and a year in jail?

Well, our betters passed that law, and now one of them has broken it.

And now we will see whether DC is a city ruled by laws or by men above the laws.

“I think the first thing we should do is check the possessor’s journalistic credentials, no? And if they are in order, he gets a pass.”

Patterico – I completely disagree. His credentials could be completely in order as a Serious Capital “J” Journalist, but if his intentions in waving the HC magazine around put him on the wrong side of the gun control debate or if he works for Fox, he should go right to the slammer and be denied bail as a flight risk.

Rowan was tried but the jury was deadlocked; the judge declared a mistrial and he was never retried. In his autobiography, Rowan said he still favors gun control, but admits being vulnerable to a charge of hypocrisy.

I think that prosecutor discretion to not charge/try DG would be a travesty of justice here.

Either the law is legal and DG needs to be prosecuted–Or the law is unconstitutional and needs to be stricken from the books (by judge or DC council).

What happens to all the “zombie” laws today we have? Sometimes they are enforced and other times they are not–Many times based on political whims/winds.

I was in the tank once when they brought in some kid and a buddy for being drunk and stupid (redundancy noted). One of the youngsters was the son of a sheriff…as told by his drunk blabbermouth buddy.
So they pull the kid out of our tank and first, give hive a sandwich peanut butter and some kool aid and an extra tee shirt so he doesn’t get cold. then they put him in his own tank where he gets his own bench to sleep on, toilet, and most important: phone. Plus his own roll of toilet paper to use as a pillow.

gregory should get that at best. because even if the law is BS as Dave Surls points out, Gregory should experience the indignities and inconveniences of the laws he pushes onto the little people.

Something tells me Sam Donaldsons DUI went better for him than the other drunk driving schlubs…

I say prosecute him if only to balance out the poor Karma of George Zimmerman’s arrest and treatment by the media. And yes I am a huge proponent of the 2A and a CCW but our side always plays too nice. It’s time to Alinsky them in the same way that they do to us. Turnabout, etc…

Gregory needs to be prosecuted just because.
And, Yes, the law is likely unconstitutional, or as unconstitutional as most of the “drug paraphernalia” laws.
But the real reason I’d like to see him prosecuted is that NBC has deep enough pockets to pursue appeals to the end of the earth.
And it would be a fine turn of events if a clown like Gregory was responsible for the overturning of another whole host of unconstitutional gun-control laws.
But, that is why the local USA will not file a bill against him – he doesn’t want to take the chance of that happening. They’ll offer him a deal on some minor misdemeanor such as “making a public spectacle”.

If, instead of Gregory, it was an 18 year old black kid with the magazine; would he be prosecuted? Yes.

If, instead of Gregory, it was a thirty-something accountant with the magazine; would he be prosecuted? Yes.

Whatever you think of the law, it has to apply to everybody equally, or it applies to nobody. If Gregory gets a pass, then everybody who has ever been prosecuted/convicted under the law needs to sue D.C. for selective/malicious prosecution.

I would think that a successful “selective/malicious prosecution” suit would require hard evidence of the DA saying “we’re going after this guy because”,
and that just doesn’t seem realistic.
For a civil-rights violation, the plaintiff would have to show a “pattern and practice” violation IMO, but IANAL,
and those that are may have a better insight into this issue.
Prosecutorial discretion is the name of the game, no matter what the charge.

Yes, he should be.
If one is going to participate in civil disobediance one must be willing to suffer the slings and arrows that come with knowingly breaking even an unjust law.
The DC police claim they told NBC and Gregory that they could not use the magazine, bringing it into Dc would be illegal, and they knowingly ignored that ruling and knowingly broke the law. If you feel that one should be allowed to own one and you do so and show it on national effing TV you know good and well prosecution is coming.
Gregory actually wants the ban he violated so any fines and jail time is a great bit of Petard, Hoisting upon thereof.

To note, the law is unconstitutional yet no doubt law abiding citizens who use guns to protect themselves, loved ones, property, etc. have been prosecuted by anti gun laws. Now it’s Gregory’s turn. The Left *must* show they’ll uphold the gun restriction laws or be shown as big government frauds (which I doubt Republicans will do) who want big government for the sake of control, not for the public safety.

He (or his agent) was specifically told by local LE that he may not brandish the magazine for any reason else he violate a criminal statute. He did it anyway.

It’s the classic situation confronted by myriad cops everyday: Should everyone always be cited for non-violent crimes, or do we reserve such for those who display callous disregard for their authority? How many countless times is discretion given to those who admit their mistake in a respectful manner? How many times is someone taken into custody more for disrespect of the officer and/or the law? Gregory merits arrest and prosecution.

It would also serve a crucial point: The press is NOT above the law. I can not recall the last time some jerk journalist was apprehended for something directly related to their reporting. I can cite chapter and verse of those who willingly disclosed state secrets and troop movements and weren’t even investigated. The public MUST recognize that the press can’t operate with legal impunity.

He FIRST asked the police if he could do this stunt, was told it was illegal, and went ahead and did it anyway … not my definition of a law abiding citizen … slap him around a bit but eventually let him off with a warning …

If the law is applied equally – then I have no problem. But Gregory is a pompous ass and part of the MSM/liberal elite. He or NBC is probably kissing major booty right now to keep the investigation on the down low and for nothing to come of it.

However, David Gregory appears to have intentionally and brazenly broken that law. And not out of any intention to demonstrate its unconstitutionality, to the contrary, just for a dramatic moment on TV while trying to get more laws passed. He should be prosecuted if anyone is to be prosecuted.

He’d be the perfect test case for the constitutionality of the law …

The idea that this law would only be invoked against those people that the prosecutor thought “ought” to be prosecuted is offensive to justice.

In my mind the deciding factor is that they apparently asked for permission and when it was denied they went ahead and did it anyway. That’s outright defiance of the law and I think merits prosecution. If he hadn’t asked for permission though, I don’t know, it seems like resources could be used better elsewhere than enforcing an idiotic law but he shouldn’t be getting a free pass either. If other people are getting prosecuted for it than he should be too.

No, the court hasn’t ruled. Clearly there must be a line, but we don’t know where it is. IF the militia clause means anything though, it would indicate that “the people” need to be allowed weapons useful to a militia, which would probably include semi-auto rifles. Not so sure about magazines.

There is no legitimate interest to which banning magazines of an arbitrary size is reasonably tailored to achieve. Mass shootings are too rare to justify such, as well as the difference between them too trivial.

I think this nicely highlights the myriad of pitfalls legal gun owners encounter. If he is not prosecuted, since they knowingly broke the law, wouldn’t that be a touchstone for every defense of selective prosecution going forward?

One of the things you guys are missing here is the purpose of the law (and most of the laws on the books). It’s to allow the state to collect fines. If the government was really interested in controlling crime they would deal effectively with the criminals. But since the only time most of us are interested in controlling crime is when we are the victim the government falls back on what they do best. Get money.

If Judith Miller was willing to be incarcerated for not revealing sources in the Plame Investigation, what sets David Gregory above her?
She just refused to answer a question;
Gregory actually committed a crime!
Oh, that’s right, he’s the host of Meet The Press, whose previous host told a more believable story in that Plame Investigation causing Scooter Libby to be convicted over a he said/he said moment.
Well, we can’t inconvenience one of the Gods of DC Media, can we?

44 & 45…..
A Federal District Court in CA, in throwing out a regulation of ammo sales law passed by the CA Legislature, cited the restrictions as an unreasonable infringement on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms. His ruling was upheld IIRC by the 9th-Circus.
If those measures were an unconstitutional infringement, then the actual prohibition of a vital component for a “militia useful” weapon would be also ISTM.

I say prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. The law is written for the rich as well as the poor, the smart as well as the dumb, the elites as well as the rednecks and to let him off on a nonexistent journalist exemption would be a slap in the face to all law abiding people.

As for Kurtz, et al, sniffing that it is absurd to hold Gregory accountable for his action, are we to believe that a prop was crucial to making his point? Are we to believe that it was so important that it justified breaking the law just to wave an empty magazine around on national TV? Is Gregory so inept that he could not make his point without it? And why is Gregory, as a supposed non-biased journalist, choosing sides and trying to make to make the anti-gun case instead of seeking seeking information for the edification of his viewers?

The answer to most of these questions lies in the belief of our self-appointed betters that are immune to the laws, rules and regulations that they wish to impose on others. In their eyes, certain things must be done to better the country and if the rights of the lower classes are trampled, too bad as long as theirs are not infringed. As Obama often says, eggs need to be broken to make an omelette.

It is often said that ingonance of the law is no excuse and it seems that Gregory cannot avail himself of even that defense as he sought to see if there existed an exclusion for himself, as he in fact he willfully, deliberately and knowingly violated the law aqnd that alone should deem him worthy of a full prosecution. To do otherwise would be to admit that we have a class of people who are above the law and that would be a tragedy.

I was always taught that the way to get rid of a bad law was to have the authorities enforce it relentlessly; for, only through public distaste, would the legislative levels of government respond.

Anyone remember the Double-Nickel?
Finally, it just got to be too much, and after wandering in the wilderness for forty-years, a different GOP came back to DC and corrected a mistake one of their previous leaders had committed creating a country of scoff-laws.

Gregory held up a magazine as a prop and called for a ban on those magazines in a jurisdiction in which those magazines are in fact banned.

Fry him. This goes beyond the normally expected media malpractice. David Gregory attempted to smear La Pierre by pretending as if (as per usual for the MFM) there are no gun laws. That’s the premise he was operating under, if the reports are true and his network asked the DC police for permission and were denied it for the display of the magazine.

Think on it. His crime is huge. The only larger crime imaginable is defending him.

His only possible defense is that only those who violate laws to whore themselves out for more laws against the very crime they’re committing is an aggravating factor. Not a mitigating one.

Speaking of which, and since David Gregory is a member of the MSM — whose motto originally was “who, what, when, where, how and why” — the disingenuous nature of the media is absurdly apparently when stories like the following (linked to at the drudgereport) come out.

Details of the suspects are purposefully omitted (ie, the opposite of touting: “if I [Obama] had a son, he’d look like…”), and the irony of such crimes occurring commonly in a gun-control-crazed city (ie, its government and the voters who give it power) doesn’t phase either most reporters or, for that matter, so many people who lean left.

Modern-day liberalism: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

chicago.cbslocal.com: “Three of my fingers were literally, pretty much hanging off my hand, and that’s pretty scary,” says 31-year-old Anthony Kuber. His hand, he thinks, was shattered by gunfire as he held it up to surrender to a pair of robbers who pounced on him Nov. 5. He says he was compliant and told the men to take anything. Instead, Kuber says, “The guy just opened fire on me.”

He’d just gotten off the Red Line at 47th Street and was walking west to his dad’s house. Somebody grabbed him by the back of his jacket and pulled him into an alley. The loot the attackers wanted was his iPhone, which fell to the ground. A suspect snatched it up.

The gun went off. Dazed and bleeding – he was shot multiple times — Kuber dragged himself out to the street to beg someone to help him.

Anthony Kuber was hired for a seasonal job at a meat packing plant just days before the shooting. Now, he can’t work because he still has to go to the hospital for treatments twice a week, and he’s in constant pain. He had no health insurance and has mounting medical bills, but loved ones have started a fund through a website.

^ Well, at least Obamacare will save the day. And, at the same time, don’t cry for us, Argentina.

Or, Sammy, instead of “guessing” you could go on-line and access the DC Municipal Code, and find out what the law says.

But, Yes, you have stumbled upon the truth.
BTW, magazines don’t usually work well when they’re full of “bullets”.Cartridges, on the other hand, allow them to function to design.
A bullet is just one component of a “cartridge”.

Here’s a little nugget for Sammy:
Under DC law, you can be prosecuted for possessing ammunition of a caliber different from the calibers of weapons you have registered with DC.
Having a single shot-gun shell is a violation if you don’t have a registered shot-gun, or it is of a gauge different than the shell in your possession.

I have zero respect for David Gregory, or for what he does professionally (hobnobbing with the Washington elite while masquerading as a journalist), but using a bad law to try to screw the guy isn’t the answer to this problem.

As President Obama and Congress weigh new gun restrictions, the Gallup poll found 62 percent of respondents support a law to ban the sale and possession of ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets.

The blame so far has centered on critics of gun control: the National Rifle Association and its mostly Republican acolytes, who poked loopholes into or blocked measures that might have banned the gun Adam Lanza used and the high-capacity clip he loaded it with.

A news article in the New York Daily News on Thursday (page 9) did have “magazine” (I only saw it today, because this newspaper was not delivered yesterday – both yesterday and today were delivered today)

NBC apparently asked the DC police if this would legal and they said no. Then (or maybe before or maybe simultaneously) they asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the BATF said it would be legal.

No, the ATF said that they consulted with the Metro Police, and they passed on the opinion (an incorrect one it turns out) that the display of the magazine would not be illegal.
Please get your facts right, especially as how the info has been available for at least 48 hours.

“For the sake of argument I’ll concede the point that there’s nothing unconstitutional about DC’s high cap magazine ban.

How in Hades does that add up to David Gregory not getting prosecuted for violating the law?”

– Steve57

It doesn’t add up to that, and I never said it did. I don’t care whether or not David Gregory gets prosecuted for this. I’m just pointing out that at this point there’s nothing unconstitutional about banning high-capacity magazines.

“Well, the truth is this law was not aiumed at people who possess the mnagazine”

Sammy – What you say suggests some enforcement issues. Is there a list provided to the D.C. police of individuals at whom the law is not aimed, is it only venerated members of the media who consciously violate the law or can any schlub carrying empty high capacity magazines without a gun in sight claim #TheDavidGregoryLoophole?

The post argues that using this magazine as a prop is equivalent to prosecuting a law-abiding citizen who uses the magazine in self-defense, but how is that the same as prosecuting someone who intentionally and knowingly flaunts the law in order to make a political point?

IMO any prosecutor who decided not to prosecute Gregory would be engaging in selective non-prosecution, since average people who did the same thing to make a political point would almost certainly be prosecuted.

Cartridges, on the other hand, allow them to function to design.
A bullet is just one component of a “cartridge”.

Yes, clips contain bullets. Which is an awfully demanding level of precision coming from one who excuses imprecision when it’s convenient r.e. bullet v. cartridge.

Clips contain bullets in the sense that the cartridges retained by the clip include bullets as a component. Clips unlike magazines are not ammunition feeding devices. People may be familiar with stripper clips as there’s a stripper clip guide on the receiver of an M14. Or an en bloc clip if they’ve ever shot an M1 Garand. They facilitate rapid reloading of the magazine but do not themselves provide a means to feed a cartridge into the chamber. Some other part of the rifle, either a fixed or detachable magazine, performs that function.

Everybody uses the word “bullet”, because that is what we are all interested in. Who cares about cartridges?

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/28/2012 @ 12:05 pm

No, not “everybody” uses the word bullet interchangeably with cartridge. Just the liars at your favorite news source, the NYT. And everyone else that intends to argue in bad faith about guns and ammunition. Which unfortunately includes you now, Sammy.

The anti-gun fraudsters, and that includes you now Sammy, can’t get away with showing unfired cartridges (as depicted in the pic) and claiming they were “bullets” (and yes I know that’s a shotgun cartridge and most shotgun cartridges don’t contain bullets but that’s kind of the point) as if they were fired at their favorite victim groups.

Put that in whatever mental bouillabaisse constitutes the Finkelman fog when it comes to guns. I recall you speculating that Lanza was wearing a “bullet proof vest” and at the time I responded that ignoramuses can’t tell the difference between load bearing or utility vests and bullet proof vests.

As in every other case from Benghazi to Newtown when you’re hopelessly wrong you continue to try to pretend that it’s possible to look at things in some way that proves you right.

It isn’t.

As far as the guns thing goes, I take your question “do clips contain bullets” to indicate that precision is possible. I take your later assertion that the distinction between bullets and cartridges to mean you intend to confuse things when it suits your purposes.

Precision is possible, except when it works against you. Then precision must be ridiculed.

Here it says NBC conflicting information. What I am wrong about or what was wrong is that the BTAF did not merely tell them what federal law is – somebody called up somebody in Metro DC and got the opinion it was right.

Well, listen the IRS isn’t always correct in what it tells people either.

If the magazine was real, and not a studio propr, his only defense now is that the magazine ban violates the Second amendment on the basis that the Second Amendment requires strict scrutiny for complete bans, and the magazine ban fails to satisfy strict scrutiny. In my opinion, courts should use strict scrutiny when dealing with laws that ban a particular type of arm, and if this magazine ban fails strict scrutiny, Gregory should not be prosecuted, and the law should be struck down.

“I just said I don’t think the idea was to punish people who had magaazines without having the guns to put them in nor any intentuiion to do so.”

Sammy – Actually you said “Well, the truth is this law was not aiumed at people who possess the mnagazine,” which is a much more definitive statement for somebody who has not even read the statute.

Why wouldn’t D.C. law writers write their statutes to reflect their actual intent so we don’t have confusing situations when somebody deliberately flouts black letter law and tries to avoid consequences based upon good intentions.

Sammy – What you say suggests some enforcement issues. Is there a list provided to the D.C. police of individuals at whom the law is not aimed, is it only venerated members of the media who consciously violate the law or can any schlub carrying empty high capacity magazines without a gun in sight claim #TheDavidGregoryLoophole?

There was a famous case in England where someone found a gun on his prpperty, brought it into the police station, and was arrested and proseucuted, and only a very big hullabaloo finally cause dthe prosecution to be dropped.

IMO any prosecutor who decided not to prosecute Gregory would be engaging in selective non-prosecution, since average people who did the same thing to make a political point would almost certainly be prosecuted.

If anyone prosecuted Gregory, the DC City Council would probably change the law retroactively.

“IMO any prosecutor who decided not to prosecute Gregory would be engaging in selective non-prosecution, since average people who did the same thing to make a political point would almost certainly be prosecuted.”

DRJ – I completely agree, but how can they prosecute a Capital “J” Journalist for violating a law which he supports? That’s just crazy talk!!!!!!

Plus Sammy says D.C. did not write the statute the way they really meant it to apply even though he has not read it, so David Gregory has that going for him, which is nice.

“There was a famous case in England where someone found a gun on his prpperty, brought it into the police station, and was arrested and proseucuted, and only a very big hullabaloo finally cause dthe prosecution to be dropped.”

I would tentatively support your result Beldar, but I would rather see him appeal this conviction to the DC Circuit, and if neccessary to the SCOTUS.
It would make a very good case, and result in strange bedfellows that DG would have to defend on the DC Cocktail Circuit.
Plus, having his name on a decision overturning a Leftist wish-list gun-law would be delicious.

The post argues that using this magazine as a prop is equivalent to prosecuting a law-abiding citizen who uses the magazine in self-defense, but how is that the same as prosecuting someone who intentionally and knowingly flaunts the law in order to make a political point?

No, not equivalent. Just two examples of cases where any prosecutor is going to hate being the prosecutor.

Yes, PP, but this prosecutor is a USA and works for Holder.
How much tap-dancing (Oops, is that Racist?) would he have to do to get around a No-Bill?
Then, there’s the Race-Card:
Perp is Rich White Dude (a member of the 1%, surely),
prosecutor is Black, and is not a member of the 1%.

Plus, don’t forget the prosecution that they mounted against a vet who was transitting the District from his home north of Maryland, to his new duty station (IIRC) in the Carolina’s or Georgia, and stopped at Walter Reed for an out-patient treatment.
He had his personal weapons locked in cases in the trunk of his car as per US Law on Interstate Transport of Firearms, and was busted by DC because of that stop at Walter Reed.
Their excuse was that because he stopped, he was no longer “transitting” the District, but had ended a trip there, and was attempting to begin another.
Sounds like a classic case of “profiling” to me.

The post argues that using this magazine as a prop is equivalent to prosecuting a law-abiding citizen who uses the magazine in self-defense, but how is that the same as prosecuting someone who intentionally and knowingly flaunts the law in order to make a political point?

No, not equivalent. Just two examples of cases where any prosecutor is going to hate being the prosecutor.

Comment by Patterico (62908f) — 12/28/2012 @ 1:43 pm

I don’t know about this. When you apply for the job of assistant DA in a place like DC, don’t you know going in that they have draconian gun control laws?

If an attorney doesn’t approve of those laws, why work for a jurisdiction that has them when there are all sorts of places that don’t?

I can’t see how a prosecutor would hate prosecuting someone for using a firearm in self-defense (or some “illegal” configuration or compenent attached to said firearm) if they could stand to work in someplace like DC, or Rahm Emmanuel’s Chicago, or Bloomberg’s New York. These places are run by people who find it offensive when someone has the temerity to rely on themselves for their own defense.

I’m not exaggerating; Bloomberg wouldn’t even let the NY state National Guard patrol his city’s streets armed after hurricane Sandy. Only his NYPD can walk the streets armed as long as he has anything to say. The peasantry who don’t have the benefit of a personal security detail like Nanny Bloomberg can die at the hands of roving mobs as far as he’s concerned.

How does a prosecutor work for someone like that and simultaneously hate having to prosecute people who are indecent enough to not go quietly?

I’m curious as to whether they could be charged with conspiring to break the large magazine law. There’s no question of intent to break it, and they communicated with each other about that law-breaking, and planned to do it.

You made a comparison between using a high capacity magazine in self-defense (which can be a defense to a criminal conviction) and using it as a journalist for political purposes (which can’t and shouldn’t be a defense).

I accept your representation that the point of your comparison was to illustrate why it’s hard for a prosecutor to handle these situations, but sometimes it’s hard to be a doctor and a police officer and many other professions, too.

I don’t see why that matters. In fact, one of the hallmarks of being a prosecutor is that you handle each case on its merits, right? Why would it be hard to prosecute someone who knowingly and intentionally flaunts the law to make a political point?

By the way–How do you challenge a law as “unconstitutional” without having somebody violate the law first and be prosecuted (standing?)–Plus the person would have to agree to fight the law too?

One of the common ways to grease the skids is for a prosecutor to charge with a serious charge, then negotiate down to lesser charges for an admission of guilt.

Who would risk a felony gun charge (to make a case) on the prayer that, eventually (maybe somebody hears the case, and maybe they agree with the argument), some court would eventually not find that person guilty vs getting pleading guilty for a much lessor charge.

If the local court did dismiss, what would be the chances that the District would appeal?
That was the route that Heller took.
The District can’t afford to have one of its bed-rock laws on “safety” thrown out like that.

You made a comparison between using a high capacity magazine in self-defense (which can be a defense to a criminal conviction) and using it as a journalist for political purposes (which can’t and shouldn’t be a defense).

I accept your representation that the point of your comparison was to illustrate why it’s hard for a prosecutor to handle these situations, but sometimes it’s hard to be a doctor and a police officer and many other professions, too.

I don’t see why that matters. In fact, one of the hallmarks of being a prosecutor is that you handle each case on its merits, right? Why would it be hard to prosecute someone who knowingly and intentionally flaunts the law to make a political point?

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/28/2012 @ 3:18 pm

I’m sure sometimes it sucks to be a prosecutor. When I was in the Navy I knew a couple of guys who I’m sure thought their career choice sucked. Right before they died.

Even if you leave aside the life-ending potentialities of choosing a career in the service, the fact is if you become an officer you’re going to end up shedding friends. It’s just not possible to remain loyal to your duties and your friends at the same time.

If you aspire to command, you must be and are aware you’re going to have to do some soul-tearing things. You’re going to have to hammer some enlisted guy who’s a good egg. You’re going to have to vector some guy into harm’s way, despite the fact you were the best man at his wedding.

If you’re not willing to write that letter, if you’re not willing to tell your friend’s three year old son why daddy isn’t coming home, don’t embark on that career path.

By the same token, why should I feel badly for some prosecutor enforcing the laws of the jurisdiction he or she chose to work for?

I don’t see why that matters. In fact, one of the hallmarks of being a prosecutor is that you handle each case on its merits, right? Why would it be hard to prosecute someone who knowingly and intentionally flaunts the law to make a political point?

You handle each case on its merits. But there is also prosecutorial discretion available for all sorts of situations. I am not saying how I would handle this case. But I can see how a prosecutor in either scenario I described would look at whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion. And they would strive not to make political points of their own in making that decision.

Can you explain how a prosecutor would be making a political point in deciding whether or not to prosecute an alleged crime?

I accept that many people might try to politicize the prosecutor’s decision, but the prosecutor can’t control that. IMO the prosecutor’s best option is to make the decision without worrying about the political aspects.

If the only reason to not prosecute is because the punishment is too draconian for the crime, then we have an equal protection issue when it isn’t deemed too draconian in any other case- maybe some of you fine lawyers here can then do some pro-bono work freeing and getting convictions reversed on everyone ever caught in DC with a hi-cap mag.

All this talk of proprietorial discretion bothers me. It invites lawyers and their masters to hold something over everyone’s head, and then use the threat of the hammer falling to coerce behavior and tyrannize people. Look at Zimmerman, the world’s first “white hispanic” with the broken nose, and the dead black punk with the skinned knuckles and the fight videos. Or Campeon and Ramos, or identity thieves from Mexico vs. the US bred versions.

As a conservative, regardless of how I feel about Obamacare, I believe the law is the law until it is repealed. Therefore, Hobby Lobby should be fined until they get a temporary injunction while the case works its way to the Supreme Court. (Justice Sotomayor denied an emergency injunction, by the way. How nice.) That’s the law. Liberals undoubtedly agree with me regarding Hobby Lobby, but they don’t when it comes to David Gregory. Of course, anyone else who breaks DC gun laws should be prosecuted, if you ask those same liberals. Just not David Gregory because he was making a point. Like Hobby Lobby. But that’s different, they’ll say.

How? How is it different? Both are cases where the law is being broken. I thought liberals were all about “fairness.” Where’s the fairness when Hobby Lobby has to pay 1.3 million dollars PER DAY to prove a point and David Gregory doesn’t even have a charge pending against him? And no, the ATF isn’t allowed to waive DC gun laws.

If Hobby Lobby has to pay fines for not complying with Obamacare laws, David Gregory and his staff should be charged and convicted with knowingly violating DC gun laws. Period. That would be fairness. That would be an equal application of the law.

So now Obama will appear on MTP and, during that appearance, I doubt he will urge the authorities to prosecute Gregory. At the same time, does anyone think the Obama Administration will tell the IRS not to levy and collect the fines against Hobby Lobby?

I must take exception to leviticus’s assertion that restrictions on the capacity of a magazine is constitutional. The operative phrase of the second amendment of the constitution reads “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The militia preamble being found to not be controlling and therefore irrelevant. It does not say “execpt those arms that we decide we don’t like” or “except those that live in certain places”. Arms include ALL weapons. The constitution makes absolutely no exception on this. It also makes no excretion as to who has that right. Anyone not barred from owning weapons by due process of law may keep and bear any arm they so desire. All supreme court rulings to the contrary are UNCONSTITUTIONAL on their face because they contradict the black letter law of the constitution. The court may fill in the blank spaces in between the constitution’s words but it may NOT contradict those that exist.

I agree with rorschach. I think the question is whether states can regulate magazine capacity or require registration of guns (I think they can but shouldn’t). The federal government? I don’t think they can constitutionally regulate privately owned weapons.

Leave it entirely to the states.

Let citizens decide if they prefer Chicago or Texas.

I would love to see liberal and conservative havens. The country would be a lot happier.

Can you explain how a prosecutor would be making a political point in deciding whether or not to prosecute an alleged crime?

Sure. They could do so by making extraneous and unnecessary political commentary in conjunction with the announcement of the decision.

There are many comments in this thread that are perfectly acceptable as political commentary, but would sound bad coming out of a prosecutor’s mouth as he or she announces the filing of charges against Gregory.

Ditto comments on lefty blogs accompanying an announcement of a declination of charges.

I accept that many people might try to politicize the prosecutor’s decision, but the prosecutor can’t control that. IMO the prosecutor’s best option is to make the decision without worrying about the political aspects.

“If an attorney doesn’t approve of those laws, why work for a jurisdiction that has them when there are all sorts of places that don’t?”

Steve57 – At first I did not think the above was a serious question because most people could easily answer it themselves, but then you doubled down on the stupid in comment #135 while actually providing the answer to the question in your comment.

Unless you’re at the top of the ladder or work for yourself, and sometimes not even then, most adults realize that 100% of every job is not going to be ideal and that they are going to be asked to do things they may or may not support. If they don’t make policy, that is the way the real world works and lawyers are trained be be able to argue both sides of a case. I’m pretty sure no ADA in Los Angeles spends 100% of his/her time prosecuting homeowners for discharging their weapons at intruders either and that there might be other aspects of the job an ADA might find rewarding.

By the same token, why should I feel badly for some prosecutor enforcing the laws of the jurisdiction he or she chose to work for?

I think I missed the part where Patterico was asking for sympathy rather than giving his opinion.

I hate to keep beating on a dead horse…but, people who have done nothing wrong shouldn’t be punished by the government.

And, Gregory has done nothing wrong, except possibly be foolish enough to believe that gun control is an answer to societal violence.

The law in Washington D.C. is stupid, unconstitutional (because it infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms), and what’s worse it’s wicked and evil, and no one should be prosecuted because of it.

I hope it would not be untoward of me to opine that Patterico’s comments on this thread have been eminently sensible, and done much to reassure me of the value of prosecutorial discretion (in the hands of justice-driven prosecutors).

“If an attorney doesn’t approve of those laws, why work for a jurisdiction that has them when there are all sorts of places that don’t?”

Hah, really upsetting the apple cart. While moral people don’t take jobs that are immoral, lawyers find it incomprehensible that they be held to moral standards- after all, these are people who feel smugly superior when they get a serial child molester off the hook because the warrant paperwork wasn’t filled out correctly, or get a jury to bankrupt a company over a drug with a 99% success rate (because the 1% got a rash).

162.I hate to keep beating on a dead horse…but, people who have done nothing wrong shouldn’t be punished by the government.

And, Gregory has done nothing wrong, except possibly be foolish enough to believe that gun control is an answer to societal violence.

The law in Washington D.C. is stupid, unconstitutional (because it infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms), and what’s worse it’s wicked and evil, and no one should be prosecuted because of it.

Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 12/28/2012 @ 9:40 pm

Yes, but it’s people like David Gregory who think it’s good policy that we all should live under the same kind of stupid “zero tolerance” rule that states that if you form your fingers into the shape of a gun and say “bang” you should be prosecuted.

Why should such silly asses be spared being prosecuted for violating the same laws they want everyone else to live under?

In my comment above (#114 — 12/28/2012 @ 1:06 pm), I opined that David Gregory “should be prosecuted[, but that b]ecause the law is ridiculous, his sentence should be suspended.” I frankly was assuming he’d plead guilty in exchange for the suspended sentence, and I’m still confident that would be the likely outcome if he were prosecuted (which he won’t be).

But I was skipping a step: the trial.

And frankly, despite my utter and complete lack of regard or sympathy for Mr. Gregory, I’d be almost equally happy to see the jury hang or to see him acquitted outright, because:

On these facts, an acquittal could only happen through an act of collective and willful civil disobedience by the jurors in an act of “juror nullification,” which the judge would likely tell them is illegal beforehand, but which he’d do nothing to correct if it happened). For a Washington, D.C., jury to produce such a vivid data point on the practical unenforceability of such laws would be useful; and

A hung jury, or better, a series of hung juries, demonstrates the same point, but with the Kafkaesque but karmicly appropriate wrinkle that Gregory is re-subjected to trial again and again.

What we are talking about here is not just the way laws are applied, but the way they are seen to be applied. The latter is as essential to an ordered society under the Rule of Law as the former. And pretending that this law doesn’t exist, or that David Gregory didn’t break it, is also corrosive to the Rule of Law.

That’s why he should be prosecuted, because the worst of all worlds is having a law like this on the books but having it enforced (or threatened to be enforced) arbitrarily

Society benefits from and relies upon the proper and discreet exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

But it’s a backup, grease to permit the smooth and efficient turning of the wheels of justice.

We don’t want prosecutorial discretion to become a primary bulwark against unfair laws because that ultimately would put too much power into the executive branch of government.

The public will never demand the repeal or change of unjust or unwise criminal laws unless some event — as a practical matter, some actual prosecution — impresses upon the public the existence of those laws. Do you want to live in a society where it’s solely up to prosecutors to decide what bad laws to spotlight?

because the worst of all worlds is having a law like this on the books but having it enforced (or threatened to be enforced) arbitrarily

You can expect a lot more of that in what I sense this society is becoming and will become: An increasingly corrupt, flaky society. A nation that probably will have to be titled the “Banana Republic of America.”

I don’t believe I’m being overly cynical or pessimistic when I envision the US ending up with the “worst of both worlds.” The traits of a Greece intertwined with a Mexico, intertwined with a France and Argentina.

The left shrugs at such a possibility or analyzes the ongoing evolving (some will say devolving) demographics of this country and feels good and smug. They will be the last to ever understand the phrase: “Be careful of what you wish for…”

I agree with Beldar that the greatest danger is arbitrary enforcement. I also agree with Mark that we can expect more of this. Arbitrary enforcement is a plus to liberals, because it makes ordinary citizens fearful and thus makes it easier for government to control our lives.

“And, no, none of your spittle counteracts the fact that if you apply for the job of ADA in the city of New York you must not have a problem with the Sullivan Act.”

Steve57 – Complete BS. Your false assumption is that every crime prosecuted by a New York ADA is going to involve a gun. That’s the same assumption you were making with Los Angeles in your arrogance. Use your brain.

Who was it that had so much fun jerking the “terror-alert” system around, again?

Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) —

This is a bizarre comment.

Either 1) your argument is that liberals do not want arbitrary enforcement and thus a powerful set of bureacrats because a moderate Republican had an alert system that caused some amount of fear when it was elevated. I can’t figure out how that reasons out.

or 2) your argument is that liberals can’t be associated with fiat governing because some republican did something bad. And this is just deflection.

DRJ, we’re on the same wavelength (again, and unsurprisingly). Your point about control is apt. For those not yet persuaded of the left’s historic fondness for it, see, e.g., Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism.” See also, e.g., Joseph Stalin; cf. Woodrow Wilson.

Leviticus – I don’t think there is any debate over whether liberals want a government-centered centralized decision-making country, because we are all too dumb to know what is best for us. If you have any arguments to the contrary, please lay them out there.

“[Is your] argument… that liberals do not want arbitrary enforcement and thus a powerful set of bureacrats because a moderate Republican had an alert system that caused some amount of fear when it was elevated [?]”

– Dustin

No, my argument is that it’s not fair accuse “liberals” of fearmongering when it’s perfectly obvious that the accusation is more appropriately leveled at politicians, regardless of ideology. Politicians want a fearful populace, because scared people take orders instead of giving them – and orders are one of the few things that politicians (not “conservatives,” not “liberals”) would rather give than receive.

I think maybe talking about “devolving demographics” is not a winning argument for the conservative movement, Mr. Galton

Leviticus, I’m posting the following (per below) in your honor.

BTW, your counterparts in Egypt — the left-leaning people who celebrated the demise of Hosni Mubarak and thought the Arab Spring heralded a wonderful future — do remind me of a particular joke. The one about: Yep, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel….it’s an oncoming train.

If liberals throughout the Western World get knocked down flat by a “train,” they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.

pjmedia.com, Paul Diamond, December 2011: In 2008, while arguing for the need to formally introduce Sharia law into the law of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed Sharia law was “inevitable” in the UK. He denied it was an “alien” system and called for “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law. He did this in a calculated and provocative manner, while denying a place for its more “extreme punishments.”

This argument was rapidly followed by the Lord Chief Justice: Lord Phillips helpfully said there was a place for Sharia law, particularly in mediation. He lamented the “widespread misunderstanding” of Sharia law. The newly established Muslim Arbitration Tribunals immediately put a picture of the Lord Chief Justice on their website in appreciation of his endorsement.

In the United Kingdom, the many thousands of Sharia courts can quietly go about their business of implementing “justice” in a form totally “alien” to the Judeo-Christian tradition, denying human rights to many of our citizens — particularly women.

The “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law reached a logical conclusion with the declaration this year of Sharia law controlled zones in a number of areas geographically spread over the country, where the Islamist militants enforce their will. Their posters declare: “No music or concerts, no porn or prostitution, no drugs or smoking, no gambling, no alcohol.”

A reign of terror has begun, with threats of implicit violence against anyone who “insults” Islam, changes religion, or fails to dress appropriately. I have already been contacted about assisting two individuals subject to Islamist threats.

The police stand passively by, adhering to their diversity training.

^ And, Leviticus, if you ever start a family and have children, don’t be a phony-baloney like a Barack and Michelle. Please make sure to send them to a truly diverse public school. One where the idea of nurturing good test scores and academic excellence either is a losing battle or, worse of all, is deemed to be old-fashioned, non-hip and…RACIST!

We have enough limousine liberals (and one does not have to be rich to fit that label) floating around out there, throughout the American landscape. We don’t need anymore of them.

“And, no, none of your spittle counteracts the fact that if you apply for the job of ADA in the city of New York you must not have a problem with the Sullivan Act.”

Steve57 – Complete BS. Your false assumption is that every crime prosecuted by a New York ADA is going to involve a gun. That’s the same assumption you were making with Los Angeles in your arrogance. Use your brain.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/29/2012 @ 9:48 am

You’re stretching, daley. I never said or implied that every crime prosecuted by a NY ADA will involve a gun. I said that one of the laws a NY ADA will prosecute people for violating is the Sullivan Act.

I do not believe for an instant that a prosecutor will hate having to prosecute people for violating the Sullivan Act even in the case of legitimate self-defense. The city of New York regularly puts people away for the crime of possessing a firearm without having jumped through all the hoops they put in place to make it really, really difficult to legally possess a gun.

Prosecutors in Brooklyn demand a minimum one-year sentence, even for first-time offenders who technically could receive probation. If defendants don’t agree to do the time, they’re forced to go to trial, often within six months _ lightning speed for the courts. If convicted, they could go away for two years or longer.

“We see every possession of a gun as a potential homicide,” said Sue-Ellen Bienenfeld, who supervises six prosecutors assigned to the Brooklyn gun court. “We don’t want to wait for somebody to actually be killed.”

… Police arrested Kogan, 68, in January after spotting a pistol sticking out of his pocket. He also was carrying $11,000 in cash.

Kogan claims the money was his life savings, and that he carried the gun to protect it. In court, his lawyer argued his client was too old and sick with Parkinson’s disease to be put behind bars like a common thug.

But Holdman wasn’t buying it, in part because police alleged that Kogan had tried to bribe them. As the suspect listened through a Russian interpreter, the judge warned that any plea deal would involve jail time and forfeiture of the money.

…The gun court approach “can take the equity out of plea bargaining and turn it into a much more rigid exercise,” he said. “You could be Mother Teresa and you’re going to jail for a year.”

I do not get the impression these NYC prosecutors, and this NYC judge, hate putting people away. Far from it; they rather seem to enjoy it.

So I take issue with the notion that prosecutors in jurisdictions like NYC, or Chicago, or Washington DC, hate having to prosecute people for violating their draconian gun laws even in cases of legitimate self defense. They regularly do so, and with enthusiasm.

The kind of person who hates the idea of doing so wouldn’t work in DC when they could easily cross a bridge and work in Virginia. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to prosecute people for committing a crime that doesn’t exist a stone’s throw away.

The people who choose to become prosecutors in such places, and more importantly stay on to make a career there, aren’t reluctantly enforcing a law they don’t agree with.

Use my brain? I do all the time. Which is why when I travel abroad with a firearm to go hunting I will not make any connections in New York. If the airline doesn’t check your firearm all the way through to your final destination, and if you miss that connection, you are immediately guilty of possessing an illegal firearm if you pick up your bag. The New York Port Authority police will arrest you for it, and the prosecutors will gleefully (not reluctantly) indict you, and the judge will enthusiastically throw the book at you. All the while everyone involved admitting that you are being sent up the river for something entirely beyond your control (and yes, it has happened, but not to me because I’ve learned from the mistakes of others). It is easier and safer to travel with a firearm through Heathrow than it is through New York.

Even though it is legal under federal law to travel with a firearm through jurisdictions that prohibit possession of those weapons or certain gun parts like David Gregory’s magazine (either entirely or without a license) as long as the weapon and/or part can legally be possessed at your point of origin and your final destination, I will not travel through DC with a firearm. You may eventually get the charges dropped but you will have to sit in jail and hire a lawyer and you still won’t get your guns back. Even though it’s DC that’s violating the law, not you.

Heaven help you if you actually use that gun in self-defense in any of the places I mentioned. Somehow remaining alive through the use of what they view as an illegally possessed firearm gets these people’s blood boiling.

So, no, not every case an ADA in DC, or NYC, or Chicago prosecutes involves a gun. But the people who choose to work in such places do not “hate” having to prosecute people for the crime of successfully remaining alive through the use of something they strongly insist you should never have had.

We recall the reason for the passage of the DHS, was Argenbright’s failure to flag the 9/11 hijackers, well DHS didn’t stop Richard Reid, the TATP plotters, AbdulMutallab, et al, so how has this been a success.

Leviticus – GWB did in October 2001, by appointing Tom Ridge, former Governor of Pennsylvania as its head, an office in the White House, rather than a separate cabinet level department. DHS wasn’t even proposed until June 2002 after studies, commission and inputs from Congress and a bill was passed in November 2002. Here is part of GWB’s June 2002 statement:

“The changing nature of the threats facing America requires a new government structure to protect against
invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons. Today no one single government agency
has homeland security as its primary mission. In fact, responsibilities for homeland security are dispersed
among more than 100 different government organizations. America needs a single, unified homeland
security structure that will improve protection against today’s threats and be flexible enough to help meet
the unknown threats of the future.”

It’s the usual tale. Even down to this statement from the Judge, Adele Grubbs, who let this guy go so he could kill his wife:

Grubbs told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (http://bit.ly/TlZ070) that she couldn’t comment on the case, but said “you cannot predict human behavior.”

Judge Grubbs fits right in with the geniuses who couldn’t discern “Soldier Of Allah” Major Hassan’s motive for shooting a baker’s dozen of his colleagues while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”

Not to blame the victim in this case, but it seems like Ms. Donna Kristofak believes that people like Gregory and Bloomberg are good sources of personal security advice. She followed their prescriptions; she had a court order of protection and outsourced responsibility for safeguarding her life to the police. After all, the guy was released in October and didn’t get around to making good on his threats until a coupld of days before Christmas. So she had plenty of time to acquire a gun, but clearly somebody had given her the idea that it would have been more dangerous to have the gun than go without.

I’m sure if Nanny Bloomberg hears of this incident, to the degree he thinks of the little people as individuals at all, he’ll breath a sigh of relief knowing that while this poor woman may be now dead she won’t succumb to the demonic power of suggestion that guns have on the serfs and go on to shoot up a school or movie theater.

All in all, when I read stories like this that reveal what the country would be like if everyone had to live under the rules the David Gregory’s demand we have, then it’s only right that they experience what it’s like to live under those rules when they succeed in getting them.

Anyone that is for gun bans voluntarily be registered as a convicted felon and all the “privileges” that go with that.

Signing up to the Gun Ban list adds a strike to your record.

Jail if you are even living in a home with a gun, cannot buy any guns/ammunition. Subject to warrant-less searches to see if you have been adhering to your beliefs. Any bent pieces of metal, round or pointy objects that may fit into a gun, possession of a nail gun and loads, anything drawings/paintings/DVDs/etc. that may look like a gun will, possesion of toy solders, etc. will get your kicked out of school/college/convicted of a felony with a 366 day minimum jail sentence per object/offending item.

Also, perhaps we should put them on the known sex offenders lists… That way everyone can know that they don’t want guns near their homes/kids. Also, they cannot live too near schools “just in case” somehow a gun comes near them.

And since they are against civilian ownership of guns–They cannot work in law enforcement (police are civilians) and they are intelligible for military service (they are less than full citizens as they have had some of their rights taken away).

“You’re stretching, daley. I never said or implied that every crime prosecuted by a NY ADA will involve a gun. I said that one of the laws a NY ADA will prosecute people for violating is the Sullivan Act.”

Steve57 – No, you are. The Sullivan Act applies statewide in New York. New York City interprets it differently than the rest of the state. You are acting like a liberal who puts politics before everything else, e.g., “I would never work for a company if one of its managers contributed to Proposition 8″ or from a conservative perspective “I would never be in the armed forces when a Democrat is president because by definition I would disagree with his foreign policy and the civilians he put in charge of the military to carry out those policies would make me do things I disagree with.”

ADA’s follow orders, just like people in the military. Bloomberg has made getting illegal guns off the street a priority in New York with questionably legal tactics such as stop and frisk searches. His priorities flow through the DA to the ADA’s. How you intuit that junior lawyers in the DA’s office enjoy putting otherwise law abiding people away for defending themselves based upon quotes from a six year old article verges on Sammy World. With half of those defendants between the ages of 16 and 21 and half charged with possessing a hand gun, neither category is legal in my state. I can check, but my guess is New York has similar rules, amped up in NYC.

Your entire premise is just flawed, that a lawyer must agree with 100% of the laws he/she is charged with enforcing or decline a job opportunity. The people appearing in the gun courts in the article you linked do not appear to be the otherwise law abiding citizens with whom we are concerned.

You’ve dodged responding to the portion of my comment concerning job responsibilities, that unless you are at the top of the heap, no job is 100% rainbows and unicorn farts. Individuals generally do not get to set their own priorities and unless they are the boss, get assigned tasks they may find distasteful. If an ADA is directed to spend 5% of his time on gun possession cases is that really a reason to throw away a good career opportunity?

To Howard Kurtz & Co., it’s “obvious” that Gregory didn’t intend to commit a crime. But, in a land choked with laws, “obviousness” is one of the first casualties — and “obviously” innocent citizens have their “obviously” well-intentioned actions criminalized every minute of the day. Not far away from David Gregory, across the Virginia border, eleven-year-old Skylar Capo made the mistake of rescuing a woodpecker from the jaws of a cat and nursing him back to health for a couple of days. For her pains, a federal Fish & Wildlife gauleiter accompanied by state troopers descended on her house, charged her with illegal transportation of a protected species, issued her a $535 fine, and made her cry. Why is it so “obvious” that David Gregory deserves to be treated more leniently than a sixth grader? Because he’s got a TV show and she hasn’t?

Anything involving guns is even less amenable to “obviousness.” A few years ago, Daniel Brown was detained at LAX while connecting to a Minneapolis flight because traces of gunpowder were found on his footwear. His footwear was combat boots. As the name suggests, the combat boots were returning from combat — eight months of it, in Iraq’s bloody and violent al-Anbar province. Above the boots he was wearing the uniform of a staff sergeant in the USMC Reserve Military Police and was accompanied by all 26 members of his unit, also in uniform. Staff Sergeant Brown doesn’t sound like an “obvious” terrorist. But the TSA put him on the no-fly list anyway. If it’s not “obvious” to the government that a serving member of the military has any legitimate reason for being around ammunition, why should it be “obvious” that a TV host has?

…Laws are for the little people — and little people need lots of little laws, ensnaring them at every turn.

…There are two possible resolutions: Gregory can call in a favor from some Obama consigliere who’ll lean on the cops to disappear the whole thing. If he does that, he’ll be contributing to the remorseless assault on a bedrock principle of free societies — equality before the law. Laws either apply to all of us or none of us. If they apply only to some, they’re not laws but caprices — and all tyranny is capricious.

Or he can embrace the role in which fate has cast him. Sometimes a society becomes too stupid to survive. Eleven-year-old girls fined for rescuing woodpeckers, serving Marines put on the no-fly list, and fifth-generation family cats being ordered into separate compounds with “electric wire” fencing can all testify to how near that point America is.

I know of service members who’ve been charged with unlawful possession of ammunition in DC for a single round accidentally left in a trunk. It’s illegal to possess ammunition in DC unless you’re a licensed dealer, city or federal law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their duties, or unless you have a valid DC registration certificate for a firearm in the same caliber or gauge as the ammunition.

So, why should some sailor or soldier get charged with illegal possession of ammunition in DC simply for failing to spot a round of ammunition that rolled out a shooting bag after a range session in Virginia (where the legally owned firearm is kept at home) while David Gregory skates?

Why should David Gregory get some sort of media/ruling elite blanket exemption for violating a law criminalizing the mere possession of certain items? Because as the other elites rallying to his defense are insisting he didn’t intend to commit a crime?

Great, that’s ban we can all support. Don’t criminalize mere possession of a gun, or ammunition, or high capacity magazines. Just criminalize possession with intent.

But that’s not the kind of ban David Gregory is advocating. And that isn’t the ban that DC has in place. Just having that magazine in his possession constitutes David Gregory’s crime. Just as have a round of ammunition rolling around somewhere in your trunk constitutes a crime if it doesn’t go with a gun registered in DC (impossible to do if you just work but don’t live there).

Unless the David Gregorys of the world get a taste of their own medicine we’ll continue to get bad laws that they have no intention of living under.

“Assistant District Attorneys are given substantial responsibility early in their careers. ADAs start in the Trial Division, Appeals Bureau, or in the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor. As they gain experience, they have the opportunity to handle more serious and complex cases. They are also afforded the opportunity to transfer to the office’s Investigation Division, which is comprised of experienced attorneys who prosecute fraud, corruption, white-collar crimes, and rackets cases. Unlike many other prosecutor’s offices, we prosecute cases vertically, meaning that one ADA handles a case from its inception to final disposition.”

Michael Ejercito — even if mens rea was an element of the crime (it’s not, the lawyers will explain status crimes) it’s satisfied by DG et all calling the DC police and being told that such possession or display was illegal. They knew possession was illegal, and they then knowingly possessed and displayed.

There is a part of me that would like to see a series of conspiracy trials, repeatedly hanging until there was finally a conviction.

But I don’t think they’ll do that to the special snowflake. They should.

daley @206, you are struggling to somehow make the case that you have a point. But you don’t.

I could spend hours getting more recent quotes, but what’s the point? If you’re going to ignore the fact that half the people NYC sends through the system are old enough to legally possess a firearm in other states and even in the rest of New York state then there’s probably a lot you’re prepared to ignore.

Your presumption that these ADAs spend very little time prosecuting people for weapons charges in these jurisdictions is completely unfounded. So much of their workload consists of these types of cases they actually use boiler-plate charging documents and pre-drafted supporting depositions.

Prosecuting people for violating NYC’s wierd weapons laws is a huge part of their routine; they don’t just spend 5% of their time on it.

And they can and do routinely prosecute people who innocently think they can check a firearm that they legally own in another jurisdiction at La Gaurdia or JFK all the time. The fact that it was obviously an innocent error, because clearly they wouldn’t have outed themselves had they a clue, will be lost on the prosecutor. They may just be doing their jobs, but they’re good Germans and they put their heart into it.

They could care less; they’re zealots about it. And even if your firearm met the definition of unloaded and cased in another jurisdiction and as far as the FAA and the airline is concerned, it likely will not if you also have ammunition for it. As far as NY is concerned if it’s capable of being loaded then it is loaded. And possessing a loaded firearm outside your home or business is a violent felony. Regardless of intent.

So they’ll look for a way to bump it up to a felony if at all possible. These are hardly the reluctant prosecutors you’re imagining.

DC is the same way.

And yes, given that there are only a few jurisdictions in the country that makes it illegal to possess what can legally be possessed everywhere else, then anyone who chooses to pursue a career in one of those few jurisdictions does support these draconian laws.

That is true not just in theory but in actual fact, as you’ll find out the hard way if they ever have the opportunity to sink their claws into you.

The law in Washington D.C. is stupid, unconstitutional (because it infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms), and what’s worse it’s wicked and evil, and no one should be prosecuted because of it.

The problem with this argument is we already allow limits on the Second Amendment. We don’t allow children to purchase guns we don’t allow felons to own or possess guns, nor do we allow the average person to carry a gun in some locations like airports and schools. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with those rule. However, once you agree to any limits, it’s not clear to set those legal limits.

You obviously don’t agree with limiting high capacity magazine possession or ownership, but the legal representatives in DC passed that law and (as far as I know) it has not been challenged. That makes it the law, and you and David Gregory ignore it at your peril.

That’s nice and all but the La Guardia and JFD airports are in Queens.

If you land at those airports with a firearm that can be construed as “loaded” under NY law, you are guilty of committing a violent felony as soon as your plane touches down and you have no legal defense.

The DA’s office in Queens knows perfectly well that the people who they charge with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the 2nd degree just made an innocent error. They may have called the airline and asked what procedures they have to follow to legally travel with a firearm. The airline will tell them what both they and the FAA demand. But NY, and particularly NYC, is far more stringent and frankly bloodthirsty when it comes to prosecuting these crimes.

It happens frequently. They know it’s an accident. They know the person committed no other crime than just possessing a firearm in NYC, and that they weren’t aware that is in and of itself a crime.

As I said, you have no legal defense if you have a firearm, ammunition for it that’s readily available (i.e. in one of your checked bags), and no NYC license while anywhere in NYC. Even just transiting through the airport. By attempting to comply with FAA requirements you have provided the DA with all needed to convict you of a violent felony.

So they don’t care that it’s a mistake, and that it happens all the time. They are in a position to demand their pound of flesh and that’s all they care about. They don’t always take the “take no prisoners” approach but they generally do. They may drop it down to a misdemeanor charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon charge. May, but that’s rare. They usually don’t if they can justify charging the traveler with a felony.

Where do you get the idea that the people prosecuting these cases don’t agree with these laws? You will not have that impression if you’ve ever had a reason to watch them pursue these cases.

The problem with this argument is we already allow limits on the Second Amendment. We don’t allow children to purchase guns, we don’t allow felons to own or possess guns, and we don’t allow the average person to carry a gun in some locations like airports and schools. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with those rules. However, once you agree to any limits, there’s no clear answer where to set those legal limits.

But going beyond the fact that one should comply with the law whether you agree with it or not, I’m pointing out that people can fall afoul of these laws literally through no fault of their own.

It’s entirely possible to be diverted into a NYC (or New Jersey) airport and because of the way the law is written you’re in violation as soon as you touch down.

You can’t have a loaded firearm in NY without a state or city license. You can’t possess a firearm and ammunition in New Jersey without a FOID.

It doesn’t matter that NY or NJ wasn’t your destination. It doesn’t matter that the only reason you’re declaring your firearm is because the airline messed up and didn’t check it through to your final destination. It doesn’t matter that you never intended to go there at all, and for some reason or another you have now landed there. Pick up your bags and you are indisputably guilty of a crime (and a violent felony in NY at that).

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey arrest people in these situations and the Prosecutors will argue it doesn’t matter who’s fault it is you now have an accessible firearm without the proper license.

Courts might sympathize with the traveler and recognize they were put in an impossible situation through no fault of their own. But the prosecutors are right; as the laws are written in those jurisdictions there is no legal defense. So you’re guilty as charged.

As I said, the prosecutors don’t care if it was an innocent error. They don’t even care if the error wasn’t even yours. It doesn’t matter.

You can find yourself placed in a situation where you are unwillingly violating a law. It’s impossible to comply at that point; you’re now guilty of a crime. The only question is do you own up to it or attempt to conceal it.

I don’t see any push from any of these jurisdictions to carve out any sort of rational exemptions. It should be obvious that a traveler who finds himself stranded in an airport because the airline failed to make it in time for his connection, and that the only reason the person is in possession of a firearm is that the airline screwed up and sent the bags to the wrong final destination, never intended to fall afoul of these draconian gun bans. If there’s going to be some sort of prosecutorial discretion exercise, if not some sort of formal policy put in place, it should be for these people.

Not the David Gregorys of the world who, by all reports, willfully violated DC’s high-cap magazine ban.

And I still haven’t seen any hint that the people who don’t exercise prosecutorial discretion in the cases that truly warrant it are doing so unwillingly. Not even the most junior ADAs among them. The fact that they stay on the job even after committing one of these miscarriages of justice to commit more of them is all the evidence required to know that in their eyes they don’t see what they’re doing as the travesty that it is.

Because if they thought so, if they thought they were sending people unjustly to these mandatory 3.5 year prison terms for what they know was a mistake, they couldn’t stomach it.

The problem with this argument is we already allow limits on the Second Amendment. We don’t allow children to purchase guns, we don’t allow felons to own or possess guns, and we don’t allow the average person to carry a gun in some locations like airports and schools. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with those rules. However, once you agree to any limits, there’s no clear answer where to set those legal limits.

We could do what the courts do with the First Amendment. The courts apply strict scrutiny to content-based restrictions, while applying intermediate scrutiny to content-neutral restrictions.

Perhaps laws against those banning a particular type of arm, or banning a class of persons from keeping or bearing arms, should be subject to strict scrutiny, while intermediate scrutiny applies to all other laws and policies implicating the right to keep and bear arms.

They could care less; they’re zealots about it. And even if your firearm met the definition of unloaded and cased in another jurisdiction and as far as the FAA and the airline is concerned, it likely will not if you also have ammunition for it. As far as NY is concerned if it’s capable of being loaded then it is loaded. And possessing a loaded firearm outside your home or business is a violent felony. Regardless of intent.

This could have substantive or procedural due process implications apart from the Second Amendment.

In my opinion, strict liability crimes should be void on their face unless they can satisfy strict scrutiny.

roy (#228), I don’t think what you propose would work, although I agree with your instinct that there ought to be consistency between how celebrities and others are treated. I suspect that there are many arrests for violation of this law than there have been prosecutions for it.

That is to say, I suspect possession of this type of item typically has not been what gave rise to the arrest, but rather was something that was added on as an additional or alternative charge. It’s not terribly uncommon, as I understand it, for such possessory offenses to be charged when there’s a weakness in or problem with the original charges that prompted the arrest: e.g., a “public intoxication” or “interference with a police officer” charge that might well have been contested, and that was the probable cause for the original arrest, gets dropped in favor of the easy-to-prove illegal magazine violation.

Beldar, that was one of the reasons I indicated it as the only charge on the arrest (that and to prevent the confusion of status due to plea bargaining drop of other charges for a guilty on possession of the magazine). I agree that short of Gregory-type grandstanding it is difficult/unlikely for law enforcement to detect this type of offense as a stand-alone violation (though I suppose someone might have one in plane view on the seat of their car during a traffic stop for an infraction).

Maybe the DA should prosecute Gregory for being a political embarrassment and putting them in this position (assuming they even care about the non-MSM criticism).

Prosecution should be done for the following reasons:
1) it’s the law. Or would you prefer to set the precedent that “friends of the administration” get hall passes? Or as they put it in “Three Musketeers” – “This man has done what he has done in the name of the king”. Do you wish rule by law, or rule by man?

2) The best way to get a bad law changed, is to rigorously enforce it.

1) The gun won’t necessarily kill or stop the bear, and it probably is the wrong kind of gun. To count on it, it should fire at east 510 grain bullets.

Furthermore, people don’t know how to use a gun against a bear because they are not experienced enough, they also hurt themselves or others accidentally when carrying them, and because they think they protect themselves from a bear with a gun, even one merely firing birdshot, they take more risks.

2) The effective range of pepper spray is double that of a gun which fires buckshot. Bear spray is over 90% effective.

…when a bear attacks and you have two seconds to react … and it’s raining … or dark … and you can’t see 10 feet into the brush … and your shotgun is leaning against a tree … or your rifle’s scope makes it difficult to acquire the bear … or you short-stroke your 12-gauge and jam it … or you empty your .357 magnum and the bear keeps coming … or you’ve never shot a gun before … and the ground is slippery … and your partner steps between you and the bear … or the bear straddles you, pinning your long gun in the present-arms position … you might be wishing you had a can of bear spray.

“daley @206, you are struggling to somehow make the case that you have a point. But you don’t.”

Steve57 – Back again. It is indeed you who are indulging in a bout of Finkeltonian mind reading by asserting an unsupported claim that everyone hired by one of the branches of the New York City District Attorneys’ Offices supports a draconian interpretation of the Sullivan Act. How can you know this? You can’t, because you’re not a mind reader.

You and I both read a lot of the same source material and are aware of the airport stops you cite. The fact that there are a large number of gun possession prosecutions in the borroughs of New York mean nothing given the population of the city and number of district attorneys and you would expect them to use boiler plate documentation for efficiency. The number of convictions also says nothing about the number of cases dismissed without indictment, which actually exceeded indictments when the initiative started, nor does it say anything about other non-weapons charges lodged against the defendants, which are present in a large percentage of the cases.

Relying on a public quote from a member of the DA’s office to persuade you that they don’t hate prosecuting law abiding citizens for self-defense cases is risible. What do you expect her to say, “I disagree with the city’s misguided policy, but it my duty to toe the line and prosecute this citizen”? Get real.

My suggestion to you is not to make blanket assumptions based upon ideology and ignorance of how a big city DA’s department operates. If you want to learn more look into who the gun courts prosecute and how they operate.

What I can tell you is the Manhattan DA’s office was considered a fantastic training ground. I had several conservative friends from college who went to work there after law school. Their interests were in financial fraud and white collar crime. They by no means support NYC’s draconian gun laws. That’s only one reason I can say with confidence that you are completely full of crap.

Great, daley. Glad your friends were good Germans. They didn’t enjoy ruining innocent people’s lives who everyone agreed made an innocent mistake, but it was a sacrifice they were willing to pay to get “great training” in the areas of law they were interested in.

I hope Manhattan proved a great training ground for them, considering they built their careers by destroying the lives of others. I just don’t see that as a ringing endorsement.

n September 2011, former Army Specialist Adam Meckler was arrested at the VFW in the District because he happened to have a few long-forgotten rounds of ordinary ammunition in his bag. The veteran of both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was jailed and later accepted a plea deal, which he now regrets.

Spc. Meckler was only 15 days out of active duty and still living at Fort Belvoir when he had to go into the District to turn in his medical records. On Sept. 18, he went to the VFW, which is located inside the Veterans Affairs D.C. regional office, four blocks from the White House. The Army medic carried these paper loosely and created a mess going through the scanner conveyer belt.

The next day, the Kentucky native had to return with more documents so he took his first-aid backpack to keep the papers from flying around again at security. He had used this same bag to do medical coverage at the shooting range for his job and when he shot recreationally. Spc. Meckler owned his military-issued sidearm, the Beretta M9 and a Springfield XDM, also in 9mm.

He took the Metro into the city. At the entrance of the Eye Street building, he got in line to go through the magnetometers again. When it got to his turn, he put the backpack on the conveyer belt. Expecting to be waved through the checkpoint, he was shocked that the security guard held him in place.

…During this melee, Spc. Meckler had no idea what was happening. “I was thinking, what is in my bag? I thought, there is no way its a gun, all my guns are locked up. I’d made sure there were no knives in the bag.”

The guards told him that they found ammunition, but that did not surprise him. “I have plenty of bags with random ammo in them. It never crossed my mind to look for them before going into D.C.,” he explained.

…In retrospect, he thinks the ammunition was thrown in the bag haphazardly after a recreational shoot. “I think the last time I went to the range to shoot, my father-in-law gave me some rounds. And I emptied a magazine and tossed them in the bag,” he said

Spc. Meckler apologized profusely to the guards and explained what he thought had happened. One of the guard at the VFW initially sounded reasonable. “He said, ‘This happened a couple of weeks ago with another soldier. We’ll get this straightened out.’” The soothing words were far from the mark.

…The federal police officer asked Spc. Meckler if he knew that ammunition was illegal in the District. He said he did not. The officer replied that it was and began to read his Miranda Rights. Spc. Meckler said he interrupted to ask, “Am I really going to be arrested for this?’” The officer confirmed he was.

…Spc. Meckler kept trying to explain the simple misunderstanding, but the officers were not listening.

“I understand that it was my fault that the rounds were in the bag. I understand the lengths the security officers went to make sure that I was not a threat,” he said. “What I don’t understand is that, after everyone completely understood the situation that I had accidentally put myself into, I was still arrested.”

Steve57 – You still haven’t posted anything about the number of “innocent” mistakes prosecuted each year, so it’s a little hard to take you more seriously than Sammy. It’s nice to hear you are careful about gun laws when you travel. Some boneheads aren’t.